Showing that $f(x)=x$ for at least one point in $[0,1]$












0












$begingroup$


Problem: Let $I=[0,1]$ be the closed unit interval. Suppose $f$ is a continuous mapping of $I$ into $I$. Prove that $f(x)=x$ for at least one $x in I$.



Attempt:



We have a known result:



Let $g$ be a continuous real valued function on a metric space $X$. Then $Z(g)={p in X: g(p)=0 }$, i.e. the zero set of $g$ is closed. [Proof is simple using "inverse image of a closed set is closed under continuous map"]



Now, we construct $F:I to I$, such that $F(x) =f(x)-x$, which is definitely continuous, being a linear combination of two continuous functions.

[It is assumed that $F(x)=f(x)-x>0$, $forall xin I$. [ If $x>f(x)$, consider the function $F_1(x)=x-f(x)$ ]. Otherwise, if the function $F(x)$ changes sign somewhere within the interval, it must attain the value $0$, giving us $f(x)=x$ ].



But we know that $Z(F)$ is closed, hence it cannot be $phi$. We are done.



Is this at all a valid proof?



Edit: Being doubtful, I write up another approach:



The function $f$ maps into $I$, i.e. itself. Hence, to be $f(x)>x$ for every value of $x$, its range set would have to exceed $I$, and the best case scenario would be the identity map, for which $f(x)=x$ for all $x$ . Otherwise, $F(x)$ must change sign.






real-analysis proof-verification continuity metric-spaces







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$

















    0












    $begingroup$


    Problem: Let $I=[0,1]$ be the closed unit interval. Suppose $f$ is a continuous mapping of $I$ into $I$. Prove that $f(x)=x$ for at least one $x in I$.



    Attempt:



    We have a known result:



    Let $g$ be a continuous real valued function on a metric space $X$. Then $Z(g)={p in X: g(p)=0 }$, i.e. the zero set of $g$ is closed. [Proof is simple using "inverse image of a closed set is closed under continuous map"]



    Now, we construct $F:I to I$, such that $F(x) =f(x)-x$, which is definitely continuous, being a linear combination of two continuous functions.

    [It is assumed that $F(x)=f(x)-x>0$, $forall xin I$. [ If $x>f(x)$, consider the function $F_1(x)=x-f(x)$ ]. Otherwise, if the function $F(x)$ changes sign somewhere within the interval, it must attain the value $0$, giving us $f(x)=x$ ].



    But we know that $Z(F)$ is closed, hence it cannot be $phi$. We are done.



    Is this at all a valid proof?



    Edit: Being doubtful, I write up another approach:



    The function $f$ maps into $I$, i.e. itself. Hence, to be $f(x)>x$ for every value of $x$, its range set would have to exceed $I$, and the best case scenario would be the identity map, for which $f(x)=x$ for all $x$ . Otherwise, $F(x)$ must change sign.






    real-analysis proof-verification continuity metric-spaces







    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$















      0












      0








      0


      1



      $begingroup$


      Problem: Let $I=[0,1]$ be the closed unit interval. Suppose $f$ is a continuous mapping of $I$ into $I$. Prove that $f(x)=x$ for at least one $x in I$.



      Attempt:



      We have a known result:



      Let $g$ be a continuous real valued function on a metric space $X$. Then $Z(g)={p in X: g(p)=0 }$, i.e. the zero set of $g$ is closed. [Proof is simple using "inverse image of a closed set is closed under continuous map"]



      Now, we construct $F:I to I$, such that $F(x) =f(x)-x$, which is definitely continuous, being a linear combination of two continuous functions.

      [It is assumed that $F(x)=f(x)-x>0$, $forall xin I$. [ If $x>f(x)$, consider the function $F_1(x)=x-f(x)$ ]. Otherwise, if the function $F(x)$ changes sign somewhere within the interval, it must attain the value $0$, giving us $f(x)=x$ ].



      But we know that $Z(F)$ is closed, hence it cannot be $phi$. We are done.



      Is this at all a valid proof?



      Edit: Being doubtful, I write up another approach:



      The function $f$ maps into $I$, i.e. itself. Hence, to be $f(x)>x$ for every value of $x$, its range set would have to exceed $I$, and the best case scenario would be the identity map, for which $f(x)=x$ for all $x$ . Otherwise, $F(x)$ must change sign.






      real-analysis proof-verification continuity metric-spaces







      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      Problem: Let $I=[0,1]$ be the closed unit interval. Suppose $f$ is a continuous mapping of $I$ into $I$. Prove that $f(x)=x$ for at least one $x in I$.



      Attempt:



      We have a known result:



      Let $g$ be a continuous real valued function on a metric space $X$. Then $Z(g)={p in X: g(p)=0 }$, i.e. the zero set of $g$ is closed. [Proof is simple using "inverse image of a closed set is closed under continuous map"]



      Now, we construct $F:I to I$, such that $F(x) =f(x)-x$, which is definitely continuous, being a linear combination of two continuous functions.

      [It is assumed that $F(x)=f(x)-x>0$, $forall xin I$. [ If $x>f(x)$, consider the function $F_1(x)=x-f(x)$ ]. Otherwise, if the function $F(x)$ changes sign somewhere within the interval, it must attain the value $0$, giving us $f(x)=x$ ].



      But we know that $Z(F)$ is closed, hence it cannot be $phi$. We are done.



      Is this at all a valid proof?



      Edit: Being doubtful, I write up another approach:



      The function $f$ maps into $I$, i.e. itself. Hence, to be $f(x)>x$ for every value of $x$, its range set would have to exceed $I$, and the best case scenario would be the identity map, for which $f(x)=x$ for all $x$ . Otherwise, $F(x)$ must change sign.






      real-analysis proof-verification continuity metric-spaces




      real-analysis proof-verification continuity metric-spaces






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Jan 16 at 20:44







      Subhasis Biswas

















      asked Jan 16 at 20:34









      Subhasis BiswasSubhasis Biswas

      515412




      515412






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          3












          $begingroup$

          No, it is not at all valid. The empty set is also closed.



          Note that your "proof" would also apply to $F(x) = f(x) - x/2$, but there is not necessarily a solution to $f(x) = x/2$.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Could you please check my "proof" now?
            $endgroup$
            – Subhasis Biswas
            Jan 16 at 20:47










          • $begingroup$
            Not only that, using my argument would be so disastrous, that we can "Prove" every continuous function attains zero, which is ridiculous.
            $endgroup$
            – Subhasis Biswas
            Jan 16 at 20:51





















          3












          $begingroup$

          No, the proof is not valid. It is not clear (nor is it necessarily true) that $F$ is a mapping from $I$ to $I$.



          I would approach it this way: Letting $F$ be as you specified, it follows that $F(0) geq 0$ while $F(1) le 0$. Furthermore, $F$ is also continuous. Therefore by the intermediate value theorem there is an $x in [0,1] = I$ s.t. $F(x) = 0$, or equvialently, $f(x) = x$.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            can you check mine now?
            $endgroup$
            – Subhasis Biswas
            Jan 16 at 20:45










          • $begingroup$
            Well, the writing really does need to be improved. And, the inequality $f(x) > x$ could hold for every point in $I setminus {1}$. So I would advise you to try again.
            $endgroup$
            – Mike
            Jan 16 at 20:50










          • $begingroup$
            The domain is compact!? So we cannot leave out the boundary point.
            $endgroup$
            – Subhasis Biswas
            Jan 16 at 20:53










          • $begingroup$
            Does the result hold good in $(0,1)$? Can you help me out?
            $endgroup$
            – Subhasis Biswas
            Jan 16 at 20:56










          • $begingroup$
            To answer your question, the result does not necessarily hold in $(0,1)$. For example, consider the function $f(x)= 1/2 + x/2$. The idea for showing that it does hold in $[0,1]$ is this: The function $F$ is nonnegative at $x=0$ and it is nonpositive at $x=1$. so as $F$ is also continuous, somewhere in $[0,1]$ (even if it is at precisely one endpoint $x=0$ or the other endpoint $x=1$ or at both endpoints of $I$, it must take on the value 0.
            $endgroup$
            – Mike
            Jan 16 at 20:59














          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3076253%2fshowing-that-fx-x-for-at-least-one-point-in-0-1%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes








          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          3












          $begingroup$

          No, it is not at all valid. The empty set is also closed.



          Note that your "proof" would also apply to $F(x) = f(x) - x/2$, but there is not necessarily a solution to $f(x) = x/2$.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Could you please check my "proof" now?
            $endgroup$
            – Subhasis Biswas
            Jan 16 at 20:47










          • $begingroup$
            Not only that, using my argument would be so disastrous, that we can "Prove" every continuous function attains zero, which is ridiculous.
            $endgroup$
            – Subhasis Biswas
            Jan 16 at 20:51


















          3












          $begingroup$

          No, it is not at all valid. The empty set is also closed.



          Note that your "proof" would also apply to $F(x) = f(x) - x/2$, but there is not necessarily a solution to $f(x) = x/2$.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Could you please check my "proof" now?
            $endgroup$
            – Subhasis Biswas
            Jan 16 at 20:47










          • $begingroup$
            Not only that, using my argument would be so disastrous, that we can "Prove" every continuous function attains zero, which is ridiculous.
            $endgroup$
            – Subhasis Biswas
            Jan 16 at 20:51
















          3












          3








          3





          $begingroup$

          No, it is not at all valid. The empty set is also closed.



          Note that your "proof" would also apply to $F(x) = f(x) - x/2$, but there is not necessarily a solution to $f(x) = x/2$.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          No, it is not at all valid. The empty set is also closed.



          Note that your "proof" would also apply to $F(x) = f(x) - x/2$, but there is not necessarily a solution to $f(x) = x/2$.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Jan 16 at 20:36









          Robert IsraelRobert Israel

          331k23221477




          331k23221477












          • $begingroup$
            Could you please check my "proof" now?
            $endgroup$
            – Subhasis Biswas
            Jan 16 at 20:47










          • $begingroup$
            Not only that, using my argument would be so disastrous, that we can "Prove" every continuous function attains zero, which is ridiculous.
            $endgroup$
            – Subhasis Biswas
            Jan 16 at 20:51




















          • $begingroup$
            Could you please check my "proof" now?
            $endgroup$
            – Subhasis Biswas
            Jan 16 at 20:47










          • $begingroup$
            Not only that, using my argument would be so disastrous, that we can "Prove" every continuous function attains zero, which is ridiculous.
            $endgroup$
            – Subhasis Biswas
            Jan 16 at 20:51


















          $begingroup$
          Could you please check my "proof" now?
          $endgroup$
          – Subhasis Biswas
          Jan 16 at 20:47




          $begingroup$
          Could you please check my "proof" now?
          $endgroup$
          – Subhasis Biswas
          Jan 16 at 20:47












          $begingroup$
          Not only that, using my argument would be so disastrous, that we can "Prove" every continuous function attains zero, which is ridiculous.
          $endgroup$
          – Subhasis Biswas
          Jan 16 at 20:51






          $begingroup$
          Not only that, using my argument would be so disastrous, that we can "Prove" every continuous function attains zero, which is ridiculous.
          $endgroup$
          – Subhasis Biswas
          Jan 16 at 20:51













          3












          $begingroup$

          No, the proof is not valid. It is not clear (nor is it necessarily true) that $F$ is a mapping from $I$ to $I$.



          I would approach it this way: Letting $F$ be as you specified, it follows that $F(0) geq 0$ while $F(1) le 0$. Furthermore, $F$ is also continuous. Therefore by the intermediate value theorem there is an $x in [0,1] = I$ s.t. $F(x) = 0$, or equvialently, $f(x) = x$.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            can you check mine now?
            $endgroup$
            – Subhasis Biswas
            Jan 16 at 20:45










          • $begingroup$
            Well, the writing really does need to be improved. And, the inequality $f(x) > x$ could hold for every point in $I setminus {1}$. So I would advise you to try again.
            $endgroup$
            – Mike
            Jan 16 at 20:50










          • $begingroup$
            The domain is compact!? So we cannot leave out the boundary point.
            $endgroup$
            – Subhasis Biswas
            Jan 16 at 20:53










          • $begingroup$
            Does the result hold good in $(0,1)$? Can you help me out?
            $endgroup$
            – Subhasis Biswas
            Jan 16 at 20:56










          • $begingroup$
            To answer your question, the result does not necessarily hold in $(0,1)$. For example, consider the function $f(x)= 1/2 + x/2$. The idea for showing that it does hold in $[0,1]$ is this: The function $F$ is nonnegative at $x=0$ and it is nonpositive at $x=1$. so as $F$ is also continuous, somewhere in $[0,1]$ (even if it is at precisely one endpoint $x=0$ or the other endpoint $x=1$ or at both endpoints of $I$, it must take on the value 0.
            $endgroup$
            – Mike
            Jan 16 at 20:59


















          3












          $begingroup$

          No, the proof is not valid. It is not clear (nor is it necessarily true) that $F$ is a mapping from $I$ to $I$.



          I would approach it this way: Letting $F$ be as you specified, it follows that $F(0) geq 0$ while $F(1) le 0$. Furthermore, $F$ is also continuous. Therefore by the intermediate value theorem there is an $x in [0,1] = I$ s.t. $F(x) = 0$, or equvialently, $f(x) = x$.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            can you check mine now?
            $endgroup$
            – Subhasis Biswas
            Jan 16 at 20:45










          • $begingroup$
            Well, the writing really does need to be improved. And, the inequality $f(x) > x$ could hold for every point in $I setminus {1}$. So I would advise you to try again.
            $endgroup$
            – Mike
            Jan 16 at 20:50










          • $begingroup$
            The domain is compact!? So we cannot leave out the boundary point.
            $endgroup$
            – Subhasis Biswas
            Jan 16 at 20:53










          • $begingroup$
            Does the result hold good in $(0,1)$? Can you help me out?
            $endgroup$
            – Subhasis Biswas
            Jan 16 at 20:56










          • $begingroup$
            To answer your question, the result does not necessarily hold in $(0,1)$. For example, consider the function $f(x)= 1/2 + x/2$. The idea for showing that it does hold in $[0,1]$ is this: The function $F$ is nonnegative at $x=0$ and it is nonpositive at $x=1$. so as $F$ is also continuous, somewhere in $[0,1]$ (even if it is at precisely one endpoint $x=0$ or the other endpoint $x=1$ or at both endpoints of $I$, it must take on the value 0.
            $endgroup$
            – Mike
            Jan 16 at 20:59
















          3












          3








          3





          $begingroup$

          No, the proof is not valid. It is not clear (nor is it necessarily true) that $F$ is a mapping from $I$ to $I$.



          I would approach it this way: Letting $F$ be as you specified, it follows that $F(0) geq 0$ while $F(1) le 0$. Furthermore, $F$ is also continuous. Therefore by the intermediate value theorem there is an $x in [0,1] = I$ s.t. $F(x) = 0$, or equvialently, $f(x) = x$.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          No, the proof is not valid. It is not clear (nor is it necessarily true) that $F$ is a mapping from $I$ to $I$.



          I would approach it this way: Letting $F$ be as you specified, it follows that $F(0) geq 0$ while $F(1) le 0$. Furthermore, $F$ is also continuous. Therefore by the intermediate value theorem there is an $x in [0,1] = I$ s.t. $F(x) = 0$, or equvialently, $f(x) = x$.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Jan 16 at 20:40









          MikeMike

          4,621512




          4,621512












          • $begingroup$
            can you check mine now?
            $endgroup$
            – Subhasis Biswas
            Jan 16 at 20:45










          • $begingroup$
            Well, the writing really does need to be improved. And, the inequality $f(x) > x$ could hold for every point in $I setminus {1}$. So I would advise you to try again.
            $endgroup$
            – Mike
            Jan 16 at 20:50










          • $begingroup$
            The domain is compact!? So we cannot leave out the boundary point.
            $endgroup$
            – Subhasis Biswas
            Jan 16 at 20:53










          • $begingroup$
            Does the result hold good in $(0,1)$? Can you help me out?
            $endgroup$
            – Subhasis Biswas
            Jan 16 at 20:56










          • $begingroup$
            To answer your question, the result does not necessarily hold in $(0,1)$. For example, consider the function $f(x)= 1/2 + x/2$. The idea for showing that it does hold in $[0,1]$ is this: The function $F$ is nonnegative at $x=0$ and it is nonpositive at $x=1$. so as $F$ is also continuous, somewhere in $[0,1]$ (even if it is at precisely one endpoint $x=0$ or the other endpoint $x=1$ or at both endpoints of $I$, it must take on the value 0.
            $endgroup$
            – Mike
            Jan 16 at 20:59




















          • $begingroup$
            can you check mine now?
            $endgroup$
            – Subhasis Biswas
            Jan 16 at 20:45










          • $begingroup$
            Well, the writing really does need to be improved. And, the inequality $f(x) > x$ could hold for every point in $I setminus {1}$. So I would advise you to try again.
            $endgroup$
            – Mike
            Jan 16 at 20:50










          • $begingroup$
            The domain is compact!? So we cannot leave out the boundary point.
            $endgroup$
            – Subhasis Biswas
            Jan 16 at 20:53










          • $begingroup$
            Does the result hold good in $(0,1)$? Can you help me out?
            $endgroup$
            – Subhasis Biswas
            Jan 16 at 20:56










          • $begingroup$
            To answer your question, the result does not necessarily hold in $(0,1)$. For example, consider the function $f(x)= 1/2 + x/2$. The idea for showing that it does hold in $[0,1]$ is this: The function $F$ is nonnegative at $x=0$ and it is nonpositive at $x=1$. so as $F$ is also continuous, somewhere in $[0,1]$ (even if it is at precisely one endpoint $x=0$ or the other endpoint $x=1$ or at both endpoints of $I$, it must take on the value 0.
            $endgroup$
            – Mike
            Jan 16 at 20:59


















          $begingroup$
          can you check mine now?
          $endgroup$
          – Subhasis Biswas
          Jan 16 at 20:45




          $begingroup$
          can you check mine now?
          $endgroup$
          – Subhasis Biswas
          Jan 16 at 20:45












          $begingroup$
          Well, the writing really does need to be improved. And, the inequality $f(x) > x$ could hold for every point in $I setminus {1}$. So I would advise you to try again.
          $endgroup$
          – Mike
          Jan 16 at 20:50




          $begingroup$
          Well, the writing really does need to be improved. And, the inequality $f(x) > x$ could hold for every point in $I setminus {1}$. So I would advise you to try again.
          $endgroup$
          – Mike
          Jan 16 at 20:50












          $begingroup$
          The domain is compact!? So we cannot leave out the boundary point.
          $endgroup$
          – Subhasis Biswas
          Jan 16 at 20:53




          $begingroup$
          The domain is compact!? So we cannot leave out the boundary point.
          $endgroup$
          – Subhasis Biswas
          Jan 16 at 20:53












          $begingroup$
          Does the result hold good in $(0,1)$? Can you help me out?
          $endgroup$
          – Subhasis Biswas
          Jan 16 at 20:56




          $begingroup$
          Does the result hold good in $(0,1)$? Can you help me out?
          $endgroup$
          – Subhasis Biswas
          Jan 16 at 20:56












          $begingroup$
          To answer your question, the result does not necessarily hold in $(0,1)$. For example, consider the function $f(x)= 1/2 + x/2$. The idea for showing that it does hold in $[0,1]$ is this: The function $F$ is nonnegative at $x=0$ and it is nonpositive at $x=1$. so as $F$ is also continuous, somewhere in $[0,1]$ (even if it is at precisely one endpoint $x=0$ or the other endpoint $x=1$ or at both endpoints of $I$, it must take on the value 0.
          $endgroup$
          – Mike
          Jan 16 at 20:59






          $begingroup$
          To answer your question, the result does not necessarily hold in $(0,1)$. For example, consider the function $f(x)= 1/2 + x/2$. The idea for showing that it does hold in $[0,1]$ is this: The function $F$ is nonnegative at $x=0$ and it is nonpositive at $x=1$. so as $F$ is also continuous, somewhere in $[0,1]$ (even if it is at precisely one endpoint $x=0$ or the other endpoint $x=1$ or at both endpoints of $I$, it must take on the value 0.
          $endgroup$
          – Mike
          Jan 16 at 20:59




















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid …



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3076253%2fshowing-that-fx-x-for-at-least-one-point-in-0-1%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          -

          Popular posts from this blog

          Human spaceflight

          Image
          Human spaceflight From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search "Space traveler" redirects here. For other uses, see Space traveler (disambiguation). @media all and (max-width:720px){.mw-parser-output .tmulti>.thumbinner{width:100%!important;max-width:none!important}.mw-parser-output .tmulti .tsingle{float:none!important;max-width:none!important;width:100%!important;text-align:center}} Apollo 11 crewmember Buzz Aldrin on the Moon, 1969 International Space Station crewmember Tracy Caldwell Dyson views the Earth, 2010 Space Shuttle Discovery heads into space with a crew aboard, STS-121 in 2006 Inside a space suit on the Canadarm, 1993 Human spaceflight (also referred to as crewed spaceflight or manned spaceflight ) is space travel with a crew or passengers aboard the spacecraft. Spacecraft carrying people may be operated directly, by human crew, or it may be e...
          Read more

          Can not write log (Is /dev/pts mounted?) - openpty in Ubuntu-on-Windows?

          Image
          0 1 What exactly does the error message beginning with E: mean? I assume it has to do with the file structure on Ubuntu-on-Windows, but what exactly? The following package was automatically installed and is no longer required: os-prober Use 'apt-get autoremove' to remove it. The following extra packages will be installed: libxslt1.1 The following NEW packages will be installed: libxslt1.1 xmlstarlet 0 upgraded, 2 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded. Need to get 435 kB of archives. After this operation, 1023 kB of additional disk space will be used. Get:1 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ trusty/main libxslt1.1 amd64 1.1.28-2build1 [145 kB] Get:2 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ trusty/universe xmlstarlet amd64 1.5.0-1 [290 kB] ...
          Read more

          張江高科駅

          Image
          張江高科駅 ちょうこうこうか Zhangjiang Hi-Tech Park 所在地 中国上海市浦東新区 所属事業者 上海地鉄運営有限公司（上海軌道交通・駅詳細） 上海浦東現代有軌交通有限公司（駅詳細） テンプレートを表示 張江高科駅 各種表記 繁体字： 張江高科站 簡体字： 张江高科站 拼音 ： Zhàngjiāng Gāokē Zhàn 発音： ヂャンジャン ガオクー ヂャン 英文： Zhangjiang Hi-Tech Park Station テンプレートを表示 張江高科駅 （ちょうこうこうか-えき）は中華人民共和国上海市浦東新区に位置する、上海軌道交通2号線の駅である。 なお、張江高科駅前にある張江軌道電車の 張江地鉄駅駅 についてもここで述べる。 目次 1 利用可能な鉄道路線 2 沿革 3 駅構造 3.1 上海軌道交通 3.2 張江軌道電車 4 駅周辺 5 隣の駅 6 注釈 7 関連項目 利用可能な鉄道路線 上海軌道交通 ■ 2号線 上海浦東現代有軌交通有限公司 ■ 張江軌道電車 沿革 高架駅時代の姿 2000年12月27日 - 2号線の駅が高架駅として開業。 2010年 1月1日 - 張江軌道電車の開業に伴い、張江地鉄駅駅（停留所）を設置。 2月13日 - 駅地下化に伴い高架駅の運用停止。 2月24日 - 10日間の閉鎖を経て地下新駅の開業。 2017年2月9日 - リニューアル工事を経て再開業。乗降客の増加に対応し、ホームへのエレベーター、エスカレーターを増設、券売機エリアを拡張した [1] 。 駅構造 上海軌道交通 上海軌道交通 張江高科駅 5号口 ちょうこうこうか Zhangjiang Hi-Tech Park ◄ 竜陽路 (2.60km) (1.61km) 金科路 ► 所在地 中国上海市浦東新区松涛路 祖冲之路 （中国語版） 北緯31度12分11秒 東経121度34分50秒  /  北緯31.2...
          Read more